Rejecting an uncomfortable belief for whatever reason is one thing, but having the audacity to attribute what is in ones own books (yet disturbing in content) to the opposing sect is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

We have stumbled upon a Shia website called askthesheikh.com. A Promising URL we thought, but it’s actually a cheap attempt, trying to copy the very successful and influential Islamqa.info website, with the difference that askthesheikh.com is run by an Iranian-Qom educated cleric and missionary, a charlatan as you will discover soon. First here some lines about himself taken from the askthesheikh.com website:

Born in Abadan, Iran, in 1962, Sheikh Mansour was posted to Australia in early 1994. Since then, with English being his third language, he has achieved great success in delivering academic lectures and courses to reach the English-speaking audience in Australia and around the world.

In 1997, he co-founded the Imam Husain Islamic Centre in Sydney, Australia. He has been its Religious Director ever since its founding. In 2001, he launched the eHawza, a unique online Islamic Seminary program in English, which currently has close to 300 students in almost all English-speaking countries.

Dr Leghaei has publications on various topics which are available in English, Farsi, and Arabic.

Currently residing in Iran, Sheikh Mansour typically delivers an average of 20 classes & lectures/week to students and audiences from around the world, including countries like the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Kenya, and Tanzania

….

His main teachers in the advanced studies (Bahs Kharej) in the Islamic Seminary of Qom include:
– The Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi who was his main teacher in ‘Principles of Jurisprudence’ for 5 years.– The Grand Ayatollah Wahid Khorasani under whom he also studied the ‘Principles of Jurisprudence’ for 1 year.– The Late Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Jawad Tabrizi under whom he studied ‘Jurisprudence’ for 5 years.– His main teacher in the sciences of Hadith and Rejaal was the Grand Ayatollah Musa Shobairy Zanjani.– Ayatollah Hasan Hasanzadeh Aamoli under whom he studied Sharhel-Esharaat for 3 years.– Ayatollah Jawadi Amoli under whom he studied two volumes of al-Asfar (the most advanced text in transcendental philosophy).– Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and the late Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Bahjat under whom he studied the book of al-Borhan of al-Shifa written by Avicenna.– The Late Ayatollah Bahrol-Oloom Mirdamadi under whom he studied Sharhe Manazelu-Sa’erin in Practical Mysticism.

Now read what this ocean of knowledge has to say about an historical fact that is proven from Sunni and Shia books alike:

Our Rebuttal to his first points:

The story of the burning of some criminals by Imam Ali (a.s.) is one of the Sunni fabrications against Imam Ali (a.s.).

Also Ibn Abil-Hadid (another Sunni historian) has mentioned the story.

This is rather a Jewish punishment as mentioned in the Old Testament, thus, narrations that relate it to Imam Ali (a.s.) are Israelites and fabricated.

‘Ali burning Sabaites is a Jewish-Sunni fabrication?!

First of all, the burning of Sabaites (Proto-Rafidis) by Sayyiduna ‘Ali is not a Sunni fabrication against ‘Ali, Sunnis don’t fabricate against ‘Ali, Sunnis narrate in favour of ‘Ali, hence we have entire chapters in all main Sunni books of hadith, dedicated to the virtues and merits of ‘Ali and his family.

Ibn Abil-Hadid is also not a Sunni historian but a Shiite-Mu’tazilite. We are well aware that Shias can pull out some random quotes by Sunni scholars who at best praised Ibn Abi Al-Hadid for some of his qualities such as his eloquency in poetry (but at the same time making clear that he was an extremist Shiite, like Ibn Kathir said). The irony is that classical Shia scholars testified that Ibn Abi Al-Hadid is anything but a straight Sunni:

In “Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab”, Al-Qummi outlines the staunch and fanatic Shiite background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid and that he was known for his fanaticism in Shiism (which was only reduced later when he was inclined to Mu’tazilism).

The truth is Ibn Abil Hadid was not from the Ahlus Sunnah and never claimed to be. He was a self-professed Mu’tazili and a Shi’i. The Mu’tazila never claimed to be of the Ahl Al-Sunnah. If anything, they regarded themselves as the opponents of the Ahlus Sunnah.

As for burning being a Jewish punishment and based on Isra’iliyyat, then that’s another lies. As for the Sunni narration than it is recorded in the most authentic books of hadith like in the Sahih of Imam Al-Bukhari, not weak books of history and tafsir books that often include Isra’iliyyat.

As for Shia books, the burning of Sabaites is proven from the most classical books of Rijal of the Shia with solid chains of narrations.

A group came to Ameer Al-Mu’mineen (عليه السلام), and they said: “Peace be upon you, O our Lord (rabbanaa)! So he asked for their repentance, but they refused to do so.So he dug a ditch for them and lit a fire in it and dug a ditch to its other side and conveyed between them. So when they did not repent he threw them in the ditch and lit in the other ditch until they died. [Al-Kulayni’s Al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 258-259, hadith no. 18, authenticated with a hassan i.e. good good/reliable grading by Al-Majlisi in his Mir’at Al-‘Uqul, vol. 23, p. 401]

Shia book:

Mu’jam Rijal Al-Hadith by “Ayatollah” Al-Khoie, vol. 11, p. 205.

Scan:

Al-Khoie quotes from Kashshi’s Rijal, p. 107, hadith no. 171 with one of the most impeccable chains you can get in Shia hadith books. This is like their “golden” chain, plus the following hadith goes through two different routes i.e. it’s not some isolated narration:

Hisham bin Salim, who said that he heard it from Abi Abdillah (Ja’far Al-Sadiq) when he told that Abdullah bin Saba’ called (to people) the lordship/divinity of the Chief of the Believers, ‘Ali. Upon that ‘Ali ordered him to repent, but he refused. Then ‘Ali let him burn in fire.” [Kashshi’s Rijal, p. 107, hadith no. 171, Sahih (Authentic) to Al- Khoie]

We don’t mind if Leghaei takes the next step and calls Kashshi’s Rijal (one of the most authentic and earliest book of Shia Rijal and hadith) Jewish … after all he claims that ‘Ali burning criminals is a Sunni-Jewish fabrication!

There are of course plenty of other evidences, not just from Shia hadith books(we have an entire category for that), but also from the verdicts of Shia grand “Ayatollahs” like Khomeini, who like most major Shia scholars throughout history sanctified the punishment of burning, even for sodomites (“gays”):

Young Ibn ‘Abbas knew what ‘Ali didn’t know (prohibition of punishing with fire)?!

Answer:

Think about this: Ibn Abbas was a young boy at the time of the Prophet (P) (he was only 13 yrs old when the holy Prophet died), yet he remembers the Hadith of the Prophet, but Imam Ali who has been with the Prophet from his childhood and about whom the Prophet said: I am the city of knoweldge and Ali is its gate”, doesn’t know what the Prophet has said about punishing with fire?!

….

How is age important? Especially coming from a Rafidi who believes in fairy-tales such as the Baby-Buddha-like-Imamate (and no analogy with baby Jesus will help, as he was not an actual leader as a baby, it was just a miracle of him speaking) of:

Imam no. 9 who assumed Imamate (leadership of the entire Ummah) at 4 years of age.

Imam no. 10 who assumed Imamate (leadership of the entire Ummah) at 7 years of age.

Imam no. 12th (“Mahdi”) who assumed Imamate (leadership of the entire Ummah) at 5 years of age.

The Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) praising ‘Ali’s knowledge (“I am the city of knoweldge and Ali is its gate” is not even an undisputed sahih one!) doesn’t equal absolute knowledge of everything, the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) also praised Ibn ‘Abbas on several accounts. Besides, as proven previously, ‘Ali burning criminal Rafidi-Forefathers (Sabaites) has been proven through Shia sahih narrations and Ahl Al-Sunnah do not exaggerate with any of the Sahabah, they don’t follow them in their mistakes and ask for forgiveness for their mistakes, as done by Islamqa.info when commenting on why ‘Ali burnt despite hadiths prohibiting burning as a form of punishment:

In an incident such as this, there must have been a reason that made ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) issue the verdict of burning. There may have been the following reasons:

1. Perhaps the hadith prohibiting burning did not reach him. The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) were just like any other people: one of them may have missed out on some knowledge, according to his situation, as Abu Bakr and ‘Umar missed out on some issues of knowledge that others had learned, even though they were superior to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all), and others also missed out on some issues of knowledge and hadiths of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), as is well known.

Al-Haazimi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

It was narrated from ‘Ikrimah that ‘Ali burned some people who had apostatised from Islam. News of that reached Ibn ‘Abbaas and he said: I would not have burned them with fire, for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” And I would have executed them as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then execute him.”.

He said: News of that reached ‘Ali and he said: Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!

This hadith is proven and saheeh.

They said: The fact that ‘Ali was surprised by the words of Ibn ‘Abbaas indicates that news of this abrogation had not reached him; when it did reach him, he adopted that view. Were it not for that, he would have objected to what Ibn ‘Abbaas said.

2. Perhaps he had forgotten the hadith that prohibited it, and did not remember it, and the one who forgets is excused and is not sinning.

There are similar cases in the biographies of the Sahaabah in which one of them forgot a hadith and others reminded him.

Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Adam al-Ethiopi said:

It may be that he said it – i.e., when ‘Ali said “Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!” – by way of approving of what he said, and that Ibn ‘Abbaas remembered what ‘Ali had forgotten.

End quote from Dhakheerat al-‘Uqba fi Sharh al-Mujtaba (31/385).

3. Perhaps he understood the prohibition as meaning that it was merely disliked, not prohibited, as was the view favoured by some of the scholars.

Az-Zarqaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Woe to Ibn ‘Abbaas!” It may be that he did not agree with his objection, and thought that the prohibition meant that it was makrooh (disliked), because ‘Ali thought that burning was permissible, as did Khaalid ibn al-Waleed and others, adopting a stern stance towards the disbelievers, and by way of inflicting a severe punishment on them.

End quote from Sharh al-Muwatta’ (3/193-194)

Al-Bukhari hated ‘Ali and his children?!

Bukhari is well known for his animosity with Imam Ali and his children.

This is yet another vicious lie, this time against the Amir Al-Mu’minin of hadith, Imam Al-Bukhari. A lie with Shia laymen are brainwashed with from young age. The matter of fact is that Imam Al-Bukhari, like every other orthodox Sunni, believes that loving the wives, uncles and progeny of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) is part of a Muslims creed. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib narrated dozens of hadith in Al-Bukhari alone, also, Imam Al-Bukhari dedicated entire chapters (2 for Fatimah alone!) for the merits and virtues of the Ahl Al-Bayt:

Is this what the hateful Shia scholars call a man with animosity with Imam Ali and his children? Do they think they can get away with their ancient Anti-Sunni propaganda and lies in the 21st century?

‘Ikramah was a Khariji who lied upon ‘Ali?!

Also, Ikrima; the narrator of the story, was one of the leaders of Khawarej who waged the battle of Nahrawan against Imam Ali (a.s). He has fabricated many ahadith and related them to Ibn Abbas.

We have already proven with Shia sahih hadith that ‘Ali did burn people who exaggerated with him (maybe this is why Shia scholars are so allergic to these narrations …), no Khariji nor ‘Ikramah or any Sunni in that Shia chain of narration. As for the cheap shot at ‘Ikramah: Yes, ”Ikramah used to be a Khariji, but he repented and became a close student of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (Hashimi). The greatest Sunni authorities who ever walked the earth declared him (i.e. ‘Ikramah) innocent of Kharijism:

Al-‘Ijli on ‘Ikramah: “He was a Meccan Tabi’i, thiqah (reliable) innocent of what people accuse him with regards to Harurism (a form of Kharijism).”

AskTheSheikh has to answer and publicly apologise!

What can we call this disingenuous individual except (yet another) Turbanised Iranian Shaytan who tries his utmost to throw the Sahabah and the Ahl Al-Sunnah under the bus, by any means necessary, even if it means to reject narrations in his own books, pretending as if they don’t exist!

Our advise (that we will follow ourselves:

Bombard him (with Emails only!), ask him how he can deny, heck, literally ignore shia sahih narrations that have been sanctified by classical and modern scholars (like Khomeini, his spiritual leader and founding father of the Wilayah Al-Faqih concept that the “Islamic Republic of Iran” cleric Laghaei champions!) alike. Let him know that the descendants of the Sahabah, the sons of Khalid, ‘Ali and ‘Omar who have once extinguished their Magi fire and deceit 1400 years ago, are here today to extinguish the Magi fire, deceit and hatred that stems from the Hawzat of Qom and elsewhere in the name of Ahl Al-Bayt.